Judgement

Consolidated appeals (No. 53 of 1943) from a judgment and two decrees of the High Court (May 9, 1939) which con firmed a judgment and two decrees of the Subordinate Judge of Gaya (June 5, 1934).

The following facts are taken from the judgment of the Judicial Committee The family with which this

Law Rep. 73 Ind. App. 231 ( 1945- 1946) Chhatekpati Pratap Bahadur Sahi V. Lachmidhar Prasad Singh 123

litigation was concerned was governed by the Benares School of the Mitak- shara School of Hindu Law. It consisted of two branches which had been settled for many years at Rusi and Kaira respectively. The annexed pedigree of the family is taken from one which was proved to the satisfaction of the trial court and was .undisputed in the High Court.

BAKHTAUR SINGH.

|

| |

Parmesar Gobind

| |

Bishunath. Bulak.

| |

Tirbeni. Ram

Prasad.

| Sri Kishun (d. 29.7.72)

|

Raj Kishori (Defendant No.5 in first suit, now represented by Respondent No. 20 in Appeal No. 38.) |

Ram Kewal

(d. Jan. 1913.)

| Sarbjit

| | | |

Jagatpati Kailashpati Inderjit Devi

| (married Prasad.

maharaja of

Tikari.)

| | | |

Bachu (d. Jugal Kishor Racchiya Sia Prasad

9.2.74) (d. 5. 7. 72) Singh

(plaintiff in

first suit.)

| |

Mahabir (d. Dhanuhkdhari

21. 6. 94.) = (d. 19.9.23.)

Bagwat (d. |

18.9.25).

Rupkali (d.

8. 2. 99)

| | |

Ramdulari Lacchmi Rajeswar

(Proposita) (Defendant (Defendant

(b. 11.10. 94, No. 8 in first No. 9 in first

d. 3.6. 95) suit, suit. Died

Respondent without issue

No. 23 in on 7.9. 30

Appeal No. and her

38.) name

removed

from record).

Law Rep. 73 Ind. App. 231 ( 1945- 1946) Chhatekpati Pratap Bahadur Sahi V. Lachmidhar Prasad Singh 124

(Plaintiff in

second suit.) The only question in these appeals was whether Sarabjit (a near cognate or bandhu) or Sia Prasad Singh (a more remote agnate or gotraja) was entitled to the property left by Ram Dulari Koer. Both courts in India held that Sia Prasad Singh was so entitled.

The facts out of which these appeals arose, briefly stated, were as follows—Jagatpati and Kailashpati were joint. They had a married sister, Inderjit Koer. The two brothers died, and in December, 1863, Jagatpatis branch was repre- sented by three sons, Sri Kishun, Bachu and Jugal Kishore, while Kailashpatis branch was represented by a son, Ram Racchiya. On December 9, 1863, by two pattas, Inderjit Koermade a grant to Bachu of an estate consisting of a number of villages, hereinafter referred to as the Lakhaipur Estate. Bachu, at the time, was joint with his two brothers and Ram Racchiya. A separation between them took place on December 31, 1864. It was the appellants case in the trial court that the grant of the Lakhaipur Estate was made to Bachu on behalf of himself and his two brothers. The trial court held that it belonged to Bachu alone, and that decision was not now disputed. In July, 1872, Jugal Kishore and Sri Kishun died. In September, 1873, Bachu dedicated six villages out of the Lakhaipur Estate to a temple established by him. In 1874 Bachu died and was succeeded by Mahabir, his only son. Mahabir came to an agreementwith Anandi Koer, widow of Jugal Kishore, who claimed that her husband had been joint with Bachu. By the said agreement she relinquished her estate in Bachus favour in consideration of a maintenance grant. Bachu also came to terms with Ram Kewal Koer, a daughter of Sri Kishun, who had filed a suit against him and her sister Raj Kishori, claiming certain property, on the footing that her father had been separated from his two brothers. Under the terms arrived at with Ram Kewal Koer, Mahabir transferred certain villages to her in full satisfaction of her claim. Mahabir also alienated six villages out of the Lakhaipur Estate to the temple. He died on June 21, 1894, leaving two widows, Bhagwat Koer and Rupkali Koer. On October 11, 1894, Rupkali gave birth to a daughter, Ram Dulari Koer, who died on June 3, 1895. At the time of his death Mahabir was possessed of the Lakhaipur Estate (less the villages alienated by his fathe